Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-01-11

1be uDcOnStlLutiOnallly Oh LucSt d'to
was everywhere proclaimed by the Demo-
cratic party as then organized, and the
improperly and inability OF the State
thus TO fOrcibly reSGiust her Indebtedness
was the ground upon which for years they
combated the principles and policies thus
advocated and adopted by the Readiuster
party.
To the courts OF last resort the opponents
Of this legislation now turned for vindi-
cation Of their position as to its uncOnsti-
tulioDaity.
In March, 1882, however, the case OF An
toni against Greenhow, which arose under
The act OF January II, 1SS2-COupon. Killer
No. 1-came before the Supreme Court OF
our State upon the petition OF AntoDi for a
mandamus to compel Greenhow, the Trea'
surer of Richmond, TO accept coupons
which he had rendered in payment OF his
taxes. Upon the hearing OF the cause, the
court being divided, the writ was denied
and the cause carried by appeal to the Su-
preme Court OF the United States, where,
after full argument, the act was declared
constitutional by that court OF last resort.
Thus the measures advanced by the sup
pOrters Of the Riddleberger bill seemed To
have completely triumphed. The far
reaching effect OF the decision rs 1t then
appeared cannot be better presented than
In the words OF Justice Field, who, with
Justice Harlan, dissented from the views of
the majority. Justice Field in his dissent
ing opinion said " | am not able to agree
with the majority OF the court in the
Judgment 10 this case, nor in the reasoning
on which 1t is founded. The legislation OF
Virginia, which is sustained, appears to me
to be in fragrant violation OF the contract
with her creditors under the act OF March
30, 1871, commonly known az the funding
act, and the doctrines advanced by the
court, though not so intended, do in fact
license any disregard OF her obi gatlonS
which the ill.adyised policy OF her legisla-
tors may suggest"
1t was after the above decision OF Antoni
against Greenhow affirming the constitu-
tODality OF the act OF January a, 1882,
CoupOn-Killer No. /, that the opponents OF
the Riddleberger bill expressed a willing
ness to acquiesce IN the settlement. In.
deed there seemed little else for them to do,
and it was thought but matter OF time
when the creditors, the market value OF
whose coupons had by this decision been 80
deprecated, would come forward and ac-
cept the terms Of the Riddleberger bill.
Thus it was amid these surroundings
and in the light OF this decision, which
virtually destroyed the market value OF the
coupons, that the Lynchburg Convention
assembled in July, 1888, and gave formal
utte-ance to the then prevalent sentiment
by adopting the following resolution
"The Democratic party accepts as final
the recent settlement OF the public debt,
pronunced constitutional by the courts OF
last resort, State and Federal, and will OPP
pose all agitation OF the question or any dis
iurbauce Of that settlement by repeal or
otherwise"
To these sentiments the people, weary
with the long agitation, gave ready acqui-
tscence, and the settlement Of the debt un-
der the RiGdleberger bill, while not such as
many bad at first desired, seemed OF prObI-
bic contamination, when in 1885 the Situi-
ton was completely changed by the de-
cision OF the United States Supreme Court
IN the now celebrated case of POindexter
against Greenhow.
That was case arising under the acts OF
January 20, lSS2,-COUpOn. Killer No. .
and by its decision the court not only de.
clared the act unconstitutional, but yir-
tn lily nulliGed, so far as its practical effects
upon the debt controversy was concerned,
the decision rendered in AntOni Us. Green-
h0u. In this case OF PCinderter rs. Green.
hOic the court declared "that tender OF a
coupon was a payment OF the taxi; that
the "cOupOn constituted self-eXecuting
remedy in the hands OF the taxpayer, aud
il became thereby the legal duty Of every
taX-cOllCct0T TO receive such coupons IN
payment OF taxes upon an equal footing
ond with equsl effect as though they were
money" This decision also declared That
the case OF AntOni Us. Greenhob, only APP
pied where the cOupon-hOlder was en-
deayoring by Affirmative acSOn to compel
the State to accept his coupons, and not as
in the case then under consideration when
he rendered bis coupons in payment OF his
taxes and relied upon the tender.
This decision was rendered in April 1885,
nearly two years after the Lynchburg Con.
vention, and we may safely presume that
had il been rendered prior to the meeting
of that body different platform from the
one above SET forth would have been
adopted.
Until February, 1856, it was thought by
many that taking the two decisions above
set forth together the Taxpayer, in order TO
avail himself OF the rights and privileges
secured him by the case OF POindeJter Us
GreephOir, must present in payment OF his
taxes coupons which had been verified in
accordance with the provisions Of the act
OF January If, 1882, declared constitutional
as aforesaid. But this position has become
untenable since the decision OF the case Of
Chd6in Us. TAYLOR by the Supreme Court Of
the United States, rendered on the 1st OF
February, 1856, wherein it is in effect de-
clared "that after tender Of coupons the
collecting officer to justify levy by him
must afiirmatiyely show this spurious char
acter."
need not pause to comment upon these
decisions. am simply endeayoring TO pre-
sent q clear statement OF how the Demo
cratic party accepted what was then con-
sidered q settlement Of the debt c0ntroyer.
~. and how the situation which existed in
1883 has been so materially changed by the
decisions OF the Supreme Court OF the
United States in the cases OF POiudexter
against GIeenhow and Chafiin against Tay-
Tor.
In the changed conditions which now
surround us some latitude might reasonably
be allowed representatives pledged 10 the
Riddleberger bill In the enactment Of
further legislation TO efectuate that settle
ment. Yet i do not think that considers.
lions Of public policy or good faith 70 those
we formerly opposed upon the debt ques.
ton, who have assisted in eleyating us 10
power, would warrant us IN changing the
Riddleberger bill either as to the amount OF
principal or the rate Of interest 10 be recog-
nized as the debt OF the State. But as IT Is
manifest that additional legislation Is neces.
sary to induce the creditors TO accept this
settlement, greater freedom may be OBJ
served In the adoption Of such auxiliary
measures.
would suggest:
First. That all such legislation as will
deprcciate the market value OF the out.
standing coupons, discourage their use In
the payment OF taxes, and depreciate the
value Of our bonds other than those issued
under the Riddleberger bill, be adopted
and vigorously enforced.
Second. That the Riddeberger bill be
| so amended as TO make the coupons upon
the bonds issued under It's provisions re.
| ceiyabIe for State taxes. Such change
would not add one cent TO our
| liabilities, would secure the holders
OF said securities in the collection
| OF their interest, and do more, / believe, to
| induce the creditors to fund their bonds
than any other statute that We can enact.
| | am moi unmindful that some will question
the popularity OF this propositions, but
higher and moro important considerations
| should move us than desire 10 pander 10
the preiudices Of the thsughtless aud cap
| tious.
,t.ks .t.kti3. ~ fka Qfata IN ,av tha 4 MA